(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.6.29. 선고 2017누34294 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Each disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 2016, January 29, and May 2, 2016 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court's reasoning is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts written by the court of first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the ground alleged by the plaintiff in the trial is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if all the evidence submitted in the

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the 2nd page of the first instance judgment, the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26808, Dec. 30, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers”) shall be amended to “the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers”.

B. On the 14th to 11th of the first instance judgment, i.e., "(22th of the first instance judgment)", etc.

(1)The parts are found to have been found as follows:

The case holding that "the plaintiff was paid training expenses by treating two unsatisfyed by three previous courses of study, and receiving them [the plaintiff shall be treated as having completed the training course from August 12, 2013 to September 11, 2013 (22 days)], but the trainee B shall be paid training expenses on August 12, 2013, but the remaining period of attendance was unsatisfyed due to the absence of 4 hours from May 7, 2014 to June 3, 2014, and the remaining period of attendance was unsatisfyed by 14 hours from the 20th day of attendance at the 4th day of attendance at the 20th day of attendance at the 4th day of attendance at the 20th day of attendance at the 4th day of attendance at the 20th day of attendance at the 20th day of training, but it shall be deemed that the remaining 15th day of attendance during the 25th day of attendance.

In general, training hours have been reduced by one hour.In addition, Article 20 of the first instance judgment, the part of the first instance judgment from 11 to 21 of the 20th 6 [Article 2-c. 2(b) of the grounds of the first instance judgment] has been corrected as follows.

B) Application of disposition standards

(1) Article 8-2 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that "If a training establishment of a person who has obtained recognition of a training course is divided into a branch or sub-branch, etc., an entrustment contract under Article 16 of the Act, recognition of a training course under Article 19 of the Act and Article 24 of the Act, and an evaluation of a training institution under Article 53 of the Act is conducted by a branch or sub-branch or a training institute, the standards for dispositions by unit of the branch or sub-branch shall apply." In addition, Article 24 (1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that "any person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training (including any person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training upon entrustment of workplace skill development training) pursuant to Articles 20 and 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act shall be recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor for the workplace skill development training course." Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Supervision Act provides that the person who has established the training course shall be conducted separately by the Minister.

(2) According to the Plaintiff’s health class, Gap evidence Nos. 11 and Gap evidence Nos. 13 through Gap evidence No. 21 as a branch in the Plaintiff’s corporate register, on January 22, 2014, "Uncheon Center" was established on the 315-ro, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, 90-ro, 11, 3, and 4, "Yansan Center" was established on the 26, 9th, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 26, and 223, 5, and 9, as Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, and the plaintiff was established in each of the employment training courses under the jurisdiction of the Korea Manpower Agency, and the plaintiff was registered on June 15, 2015, and registered on the 17th, Seodong-si's office located in the Korea Manpower Agency.

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the plaintiff's evidence No. 6, No. 7 and No. 19, the plaintiff was found to have obtained recognition of the training course as a unit of branch office, sub-branch office, and training institute under Article 24 (1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act (which is not only the case where the plaintiff was stated in No. 14 or No. 21), but also the case where the plaintiff was stated as a training institution for each of the "training institution" or the "education institution for the plaintiff's submission of self-inspection table" was stated as the "education institution for each of the above training facilities". The plaintiff was stated as the "education and Training Institute for each of the above training facilities for the plaintiff's 1's pre-existing location" (which is also stated as the "Training Institution for the plaintiff's pre-existing location". The plaintiff's pre-existing location of training facilities was stated as one of the "education and Training Facilities for the plaintiff's pre-existing location".

D. According to the first instance judgment No. 29, the term “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers” (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26808, Dec. 30, 2015) is added to the “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers” (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26808, Dec. 30, 2015), and the term “business affairs”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.